Review Process
Overview
The American Journal of Humanities & Cultural Studies (AJHCS) employs a double-blind peer review process for all academic submissions to ensure fairness, scholarly rigor, and constructive feedback. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review. Creative submissions are evaluated by editorial board members or invited reviewers with relevant expertise.
Steps
Step: Initial Editorial Screening
Description: All submissions are first reviewed by the editorial office to assess thematic relevance, formatting, and originality. Non-compliant submissions may be returned without external review.
Step: Assignment to Reviewers
Description: Academic manuscripts are assigned to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant discipline. Creative works are reviewed by editors or qualified cultural critics and scholars.
Step: Double-Blind Peer Review
Description: Reviewers evaluate the submission for originality, argument strength, contribution to the field, clarity, and ethical standards. Recommendations include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Step: Author Revisions
Description: Authors are invited to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback. A response letter addressing each comment must accompany the revised submission.
Step: Final Editorial Decision
Description: Revised manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial team and, if needed, the reviewers. A final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or section editor.
Step: Copyediting & Proofreading
Description: Accepted submissions undergo copyediting and formatting. Authors may review proofs before final publication.
Step: Publication & DOI Assignment
Description: Final versions are published online with a DOI and full open-access rights.
Review Criteria
Criterion: Originality
Description: Does the submission present original thought, artistic expression, or a new interpretation of existing ideas?
Criterion: Scholarly Merit or Artistic Quality
Description: Is the work intellectually rigorous, methodologically sound, or artistically significant?
Criterion: Thematic Relevance
Description: Is the content aligned with the journal’s scope of humanities and cultural inquiry?
Criterion: Clarity and Style
Description: Is the work well-organized, clearly written (or expressed), and appropriate in tone and structure?
Criterion: Ethical Standards
Description: Does the submission meet ethical expectations regarding originality, citation, and sensitivity to subject matter?
Review Timeline
Editorial Screening: 5–7 days
Peer Review: 3–5 weeks
Revision Time: 2–4 weeks (based on revision type)
Final Decision: 1–2 weeks after resubmission
Publication After Acceptance: 10–14 days
Reviewer Guidelines
Expectations:
- Offer thoughtful, unbiased, and constructive feedback.
- Respect author confidentiality and do not share manuscript content.
- Evaluate based on academic merit, coherence, and contribution to the field.
- Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement.
- Report any ethical concerns to the editorial team immediately.
Reviewer Recognition:
- Reviewers receive an official Certificate of Review Contribution upon request.
- Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the editorial board or featured in an annual acknowledgment list.
- Frequent reviewers may be eligible for APC discounts or priority publishing.